Counselees’ Perspectives of Genomic Counseling Following Online Receipt of Multiple Actionable Complex Disease and Pharmacogenomic Results: a Qualitative Research Study

Genomic applications raise multiple challenges including the optimization of genomic counseling (GC) services as part of the results delivery process. More information on patients’ motivations, preferences, and informational needs are essential to guide the development of new, more efficient practice delivery models that capitalize on the existing strengths of a limited genetic counseling workforce. Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted with a subset of counselees from the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative following online receipt of multiple personalized genomic test reports. Participants previously had either in‐person GC (chronic disease cohort, n = 20; mean age 60 years) or telephone GC (community cohort, n = 31; mean age 46.8 years). Transcripts were analyzed using a Grounded Theory framework. Major themes that emerged from the interviews include 1) primary reasons for seeking GC were to clarify results, put results into perspective relative to other health‐related concerns, and to receive personalized recommendations; 2) there is need for a more participant driven approach in terms of mode of GC communication (in‐person, phone, video), and refining the counseling agenda pre‐session; and 3) there was strong interest in the option of follow up GC. By clarifying counselees’ expectations, views and desired outcomes, we have uncovered a need for a more participant‐driven GC model when potentially actionable genomic results are received online.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146805/1/jgc40738.pd

Operationalizing the Reciprocal Engagement Model of Genetic Counseling Practice: a Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Genomic Counseling and Testing

With the advent of widespread genomic testing for diagnostic indications and disease risk assessment, there is increased need to optimize genetic counseling services to support the scalable delivery of precision medicine. Here, we describe how we operationalized the reciprocal engagement model of genetic counseling practice to develop a framework of counseling components and strategies for the delivery of genomic results. This framework was constructed based upon qualitative research with patients receiving genomic counseling following online receipt of potentially actionable complex disease and pharmacogenomics reports. Consultation with a transdisciplinary group of investigators, including practicing genetic counselors, was sought to ensure broad scope and applicability of these strategies for use with any large‐scale genomic testing effort. We preserve the provision of pre‐test education and informed consent as established in Mendelian/single‐gene disease genetic counseling practice. Following receipt of genomic results, patients are afforded the opportunity to tailor the counseling agenda by selecting the specific test results they wish to discuss, specifying questions for discussion, and indicating their preference for counseling modality. The genetic counselor uses these patient preferences to set the genomic counseling session and to personalize result communication and risk reduction recommendations. Tailored visual aids and result summary reports divide areas of risk (genetic variant, family history, lifestyle) for each disease to facilitate discussion of multiple disease risks. Post‐counseling, session summary reports are actively routed to both the patient and their physician team to encourage review and follow‐up. Given the breadth of genomic information potentially resulting from genomic testing, this framework is put forth as a starting point to meet the need for scalable genetic counseling services in the delivery of precision medicine.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147027/1/jgc41111.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147027/2/jgc41111-sup-0001.pd

Challenges in Translating GWAS Results to Clinical Care

Clinical genetic testing for Mendelian disorders is standard of care in many cases; however, it is less clear to what extent and in which situations clinical genetic testing may improve preventive efforts, diagnosis and/or prognosis of complex disease. One challenge is that much of the reported research relies on tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to act as proxies for assumed underlying functional variants that are not yet known. Here we use coronary artery disease and melanoma as case studies to evaluate how well reported genetic risk variants tag surrounding variants across population samples in the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 data. We performed a simulation study where we randomly assigned a “functional” variant and evaluated how often this simulated functional variant was correctly tagged in diverse population samples. Our results indicate a relatively large error rate when generalizing increased genetic risk of complex disease across diverse population samples, even when generalizing within geographic regions. Our results further highlight the importance of including diverse populations in genome-wide association studies. Future work focused on identifying functional variants will eliminate the need for tag SNPs; however, until functional variants are known, caution should be used in the interpretation of genetic risk for complex disease using tag SNPs

Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Genomic Counseling for Patients Receiving Personalized and Actionable Complex Disease Reports

There has been very limited study of patients with chronic disease receiving potentially actionable genomic based results or the utilization of genetic counselors in the online result delivery process. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on 199 patients with chronic disease each receiving eight personalized and actionable complex disease reports online. Primary study aims were to assess the impact of in‐person genomic counseling on 1) causal attribution of disease risk, 2) personal awareness of disease risk, and 3) perceived risk of developing a particular disease. Of 98 intervention arm participants (mean age = 57.8; 39% female) randomized for in‐person genomic counseling, 76 (78%) were seen. In contrast, control arm participants (n = 101; mean age = 58.5; 54% female) were initially not offered genomic counseling as part of the study protocol but were able to access in‐person genomic counseling, if they requested it, 3‐months post viewing of at least one test report and post‐completion of the study‐specific follow‐up survey. A total of 64 intervention arm and 59 control arm participants completed follow‐up survey measures. We found that participants receiving in‐person genomic counseling had enhanced objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution for multiple complex diseases. Genomic counseling was associated with lowered participant causal beliefs in genetic influence across all eight diseases, compared to control participants. Our findings also illustrate that for the majority of diseases under study, intervention arm participants believed they knew their genetic risk status better than control arm subjects. Disease risk was modified for the majority during genomic counseling, due to the assessment of more comprehensive family history. In conclusion, for patients receiving personalized and actionable genomic results through a web portal, genomic counseling enhanced their objective understanding of the genetic variant risk contribution to multiple common diseases. These results support the development of additional genomic counseling interventions to ensure a high level of patient comprehension and improve patient‐centered health outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147048/1/jgc40980.pd

Early Outcome Data Assessing Utility of a Post-Test Genomic Counseling Framework for the Scalable Delivery of Precision Health

Information on patients’ preferences is essential to guide the development of more efficient genomic counseling service delivery models. We examined patient preferences in the context of use of a post-test genomic counseling framework on patients (n = 44) with chronic disease receiving online test reports for eight different diseases and one drug-response result. We also explored patients’ disease risk awareness, recall of test report information, and confidence in knowing what to do with their test results. Prior to the post-test genomic counseling session, all participants viewed at least one test report; 81.6% of available test reports were reviewed in total. Participants requested more phone (36) than in-person counseling sessions (8), and phone sessions were shorter (mean 29.1 min; range 12–75 min) than in-person sessions (mean 52.8 min; range 23–85 min). A total of 182 test reports were discussed over the course of 44 counseling sessions (mean 4.13, range 1–9). Thirty-six (81.8%) participants requested assessment for additional medical/family history concerns. In exploring patient experiences of disease risk awareness and recall, no significant differences were identified in comparison to those of participants (n = 199) that had received in-person post-test genomic counseling in a parent study randomized controlled trial (RCT). In summary, a novel post-test genomic counseling framework allowed for a tailored approach to counseling based on the participants’ predetermined choices

Patient Care Situations Benefiting from Pharmacogenomic Testing

Purpose of Review Pharmacogenomics is an evolving area in precision medicine that aims to identify patients who have variable drug response, detect those at risk for developing adverse events, and guide drug dosing. Guidelines for optimization of PGx testing are available for a number of drug-gene pairs, and evidence supporting the clinical utility of this service is growing in specific patient contexts. This report reviews a variety of patient care situations in which evidence is emerging to show patient benefit from pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. Recent Findings Preemptive PGx testing minimizes delays in treatment, reducing costs and time to therapeutic effect; however, preemptive testing is currently not feasible in all healthcare settings. Therefore, specific patient care situations that could benefit from PGx testing to be prioritized include medications requiring PGx testing, adverse drug reactions, therapeutic failures, polypharmacy, special populations, and specialty care settings such as cardiology, oncology, and psychiatry. Summary Although preemptive PGx testing is likely the best option for patient care, implementation challenges are impeding its uptake. PGx testing is beneficial and more feasible in certain patient situations and may be a starting point for implementation of PGx testing in a care setting. Continued efforts to evaluate patient and provider use and outcomes of PGx testing services will be helpful in informing the current evidence base and standard of care

Coronary artery disease genetic risk awareness motivates heart health behaviors in the Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative

<p><b>Objective</b>: The Coriell Personalized Medicine Collaborative (CPMC) research study is designed to evaluate the potential contributions of common genetic risk factors to complex disease prevention, screening, and management. Here we have focused on the impact of personalized risk reports including genetic and non-genetic risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) on heart health behaviors.</p> <p><b>Methods</b>: We analyzed self-reported behavioral outcome data from 683 CPMC participants who received personalized CAD risk reports including: genetic risk, family history risk, and self-reported non-genetic risks based on smoking and diabetes status.</p> <p><b>Results</b>: Participants with awareness of increased genetic risk for CAD were significantly more likely to report increases in heart health behaviors after viewing their personalized risk report (F-value=14.11, p-value=9.92 x 10⁻⁷). This result remained significant after controlling for BMI and gender (eta=0.58, p-value = 6.91 x 10⁻⁷).</p> <p><b>Conclusion</b>: Our study indicates that individuals who are aware of their genetic risk for CAD may have higher motivation to increase heart health behaviors.</p